Your votes wont be counted unless Pianna, Nomad Captain is removed and replaced. Online rarity downshifts aren't counted. You can list them outside of your top 20 to be listed as honorable mentions in the results thread.
That was an extremely fast response. Thank you!
By the way, I still think the 20 points-1 point system is poor. It seems silly to me that three people can put a card on number 20 and one person can put a different card on number 16 and that one person's representative gets the nod. Or worse, someone being a rogue and listing an otherwise unlisted card at number 5 or so and that 15 points outplaces a card that shows up on four lists but in the 15-20 range.
I think rather firmly that the 30-10 spread much more fairly represents what people really think and prevents outliers from muddling up the data too much. Besides, there's no way I'm saying that the 10th best card in my section is worth Ten times as many points as the 20th best card. Twice as much is a much easier pill to swallow.
As it stands now putting a card in at number 20 is almost pointless.
Also, not having a system for banned cards is going to bite us. Ghostly prison would easily make my list if I ran it.
And I think Azorius guildmage is a special case that deserves its own poll.
Maybe order from highest to lowest mean placement, among subsections based on popularity. So:
Cards appearing on 75% or more of lists would be at the top, in order of average placement, then after all of those would be the card on at least 50% of lists with highest average, and after everything on at least 50% of lists, you have everything on at least 25% of lists, and after those, if there's still room, you put the highest-placing pet cards. This way, a card doesn't get bumped down significantly from one person not running it. For example, I literally just got a Mom, and haven't tested it yet, so it isn't on my list. This method accounts for both popularity and quality.
Swapped number votes from...
20-->30
19-->29
.
.
2--->12
1--->11
And nothing significant changed. 1st place - 11th place didn't move. 12th place through 15th place juggled around. 16th, 17th and 18th didn't move, 19th swapped with 21st place, and 20th swapped with 22nd place.
Did some silly testing and a "rogue" card would need two people to vote as 6th place before it would hit 20th on the final results thread.
I'll be sticking with the originally posted voting/point system of 1-20 for these.
I'm not concerned about banned cards. All is welcome. I'll let the reader determine if they want to ban cards from their cube if they want to.
Maybe order from highest to lowest mean placement, among subsections based on popularity. So:
Cards appearing on 75% or more of lists would be at the top, in order of average placement, then after all of those would be the card on at least 50% of lists with highest average, and after everything on at least 50% of lists, you have everything on at least 25% of lists, and after those, if there's still room, you put the highest-placing pet cards. This way, a card doesn't get bumped down significantly from one person not running it. For example, I literally just got a Mom, and haven't tested it yet, so it isn't on my list. This method accounts for both popularity and quality.
So if card A gets ranked 20th on 76% of lists and card B gets ranked 1st on 74% of lists, your system would rank A over B. That seems a bit flawed...
Quote from Leelue »
I think rather firmly that the 30-10 spread much more fairly represents what people really think and prevents outliers from muddling up the data too much. Besides, there's no way I'm saying that the 10th best card in my section is worth Ten times as many points as the 20th best card. Twice as much is a much easier pill to swallow.
Really, you shouldn't even use a linear model at all to assign points, since the difference between any two adjacent rankings isn't anywhere near constant.
One idea would be to look at median rankings / discarding outliers instead of using a simple mean. It could solve the potential outlier issues that occur when a small minority of voters rank a card highly (and other voters do not vote for the card at all). To be honest, I've only used the mean for the pauper rankings since that's what other people used in previous years. However, as leadfeather89 said, in most cases, if you have enough voters, a simple linear ranking system with aggregate rankings calculated via the mean works just fine.
Last year (or two years ago) the guy running everything would check on a point system more like mine for a kind of "honorable mention" and there were something like a handful of cards that got changed. It wasn't in every color but they did exist.
Although White results are up on the 2014 Peasant Power Ranking Results thread, feel free to continue posting your rankings. I'll continue to update White until the beginning of August. If you would like to get a headstart on blue, feel free to do so. If you could though, please put the cards into a [deck] format. It makes it easier for me to work with them like that. Don't forget to mention any online downshifts, and offcolor flashback/kickers are multicolored while phyrexian mana is colorless due to popular vote.
Quick question for you all. I understand that this voting is for the "power" rankings, and I did vote on white, but I wanted to clarify what precisely "power" is supposed to indicate. Am I supposed to be voting for which cards I feel are the absolute strongest cards in their respective colors, period - even if I choose not to run them in my own cube? Or voting for what I consider to be the "best" cards - for peasant cubing in general - in their colors? For example, Sol Ring is technically peasant-legal, and it is objectively one of the strongest colorless spells available. But if I don't run it in my cube because I've banned it due to the power level and thus choose not to vote for it when we get to colorless spells, am I going against the whole purpose of the vote to begin with? Or should I be voting for any card that is objectively good regardless of whether or not I choose to run it myself?
tl;dr - Vote for "best" cards, or "strongest" cards?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My 360 Peasant+ Cube!. Modern borders where possible, usually with the newest (or "best") art, and always the most readable card text. I also run all 10 painlands. My playgroup is super casual, as we have a fair number of newer or less experienced players. Typically we draft with 4 to 6 people, using 5 packs of 9.
That's a good question. Mana Drain is clearly better than Counterspell, but nobody mentioned it. Looks like it's already swinging to the "best" cards for peasant, and not necessarily the "strongest."
I had thoughts prior to your post about putting an honorable mention to Mana Drain since it is oh so powerful, but nobody runs it cuz it's oh so powerful.
--
I'm incredibly surprised that Calcite Snapper is already not a consensus card. In fact, at the moment, it's a pet card. That blows me away. It blocks so much on the ground like a champ, and dodges nearly all removal. And then finishes games off after 7 turns have passed.
On top of the whole power-vs-best thing, there are also cards that I choose not to run simply for personal reasons. Like Calciderm, which is a fine card, but I didn't vote for it because I don't run it in my cube (because it's literally colorshifted Blastoderm and I try to avoid functional reprints where possible, even if the cards are different colors). Did I do a bad, or is that an allowable decision for me to have made for my voting?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My 360 Peasant+ Cube!. Modern borders where possible, usually with the newest (or "best") art, and always the most readable card text. I also run all 10 painlands. My playgroup is super casual, as we have a fair number of newer or less experienced players. Typically we draft with 4 to 6 people, using 5 packs of 9.
My 360 Peasant+ Cube!. Modern borders where possible, usually with the newest (or "best") art, and always the most readable card text. I also run all 10 painlands. My playgroup is super casual, as we have a fair number of newer or less experienced players. Typically we draft with 4 to 6 people, using 5 packs of 9.
Mana drain is redunk and I didn't vote for it, because I forgot about it, because it wasn't on my list, because the card is so freaking expensive. Then again I have an imperial recruiter, so I suppose my question is should I be voting for mana drain because of it's power level? I haven't even tested the card because proxies equal no bueno, but it's obvious that it's strictly better than counterspell following the abolition of mana burn.
Is your Mana Drain legit inscho?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Draft my cube(s) and I'll return the favor! (Be sure to leave a link to your cube after you draft). Multiplayer Cube
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Your votes wont be counted unless Pianna, Nomad Captain is removed and replaced. Online rarity downshifts aren't counted. You can list them outside of your top 20 to be listed as honorable mentions in the results thread.That was an extremely fast response. Thank you!Oblivion Ring and Banishing Light are considered functional reprints of each other. Please update your top 20. Lingering Souls is a multicolor card based on the straw poll. Please update your top 20.
Multiplayer Cube
My list
1. Cloudgoat Ranger
2. Mother of Runes
3. Swords to Plowshares
4. Shrine of Loyal Legions
5. Guardian of the Guildpact
6. Calciderm
7. Oblivion Ring/Banishing Light
8. Custodi Squire
9. Lashknife Barrier
10. Flickerwisp
11. Glimmerpoint Stag
12. Faith's Fetters
13. Spectral Procession
14. Gideon's Lawkeeper/Goldmeadow Harrier
15. Ghostly Prison
16. Coalition Honor Guard
17. Path to Exile
18. Accorder Paladin
19. Serra Angel
20. Story Circle
My 540 CU/be thread
My CubeCobra (draft 20 card packs, 2 packs.)
430, Peasant, Very Unpowered
Why you should take your hybrids out of your gold section
Manamath Article
2 Swords to Plowshares
3 Path to Exile
4 O-Ring
5 Lashknife Barrier
6 Spectral Procession
7 Feudkiller's Verdict
8 Custodi Squire
9 Cloudgoat Ranger
10 Ornitharch
12 Squadron Hawk
13 Battle Screech
14 Kor Sanctifiers
15 Temporal Isolation
16 Journey to Nowhere
17 Midnight Haunting
18 Flickerwisp
19 Soltari Trooper
20 Calciderm
By the way, I still think the 20 points-1 point system is poor. It seems silly to me that three people can put a card on number 20 and one person can put a different card on number 16 and that one person's representative gets the nod. Or worse, someone being a rogue and listing an otherwise unlisted card at number 5 or so and that 15 points outplaces a card that shows up on four lists but in the 15-20 range.
I think rather firmly that the 30-10 spread much more fairly represents what people really think and prevents outliers from muddling up the data too much. Besides, there's no way I'm saying that the 10th best card in my section is worth Ten times as many points as the 20th best card. Twice as much is a much easier pill to swallow.
As it stands now putting a card in at number 20 is almost pointless.
Also, not having a system for banned cards is going to bite us. Ghostly prison would easily make my list if I ran it.
And I think Azorius guildmage is a special case that deserves its own poll.
My CubeCobra (draft 20 card packs, 2 packs.)
430, Peasant, Very Unpowered
Why you should take your hybrids out of your gold section
Manamath Article
Cards appearing on 75% or more of lists would be at the top, in order of average placement, then after all of those would be the card on at least 50% of lists with highest average, and after everything on at least 50% of lists, you have everything on at least 25% of lists, and after those, if there's still room, you put the highest-placing pet cards. This way, a card doesn't get bumped down significantly from one person not running it. For example, I literally just got a Mom, and haven't tested it yet, so it isn't on my list. This method accounts for both popularity and quality.
20-->30
19-->29
.
.
2--->12
1--->11
And nothing significant changed. 1st place - 11th place didn't move. 12th place through 15th place juggled around. 16th, 17th and 18th didn't move, 19th swapped with 21st place, and 20th swapped with 22nd place.
Did some silly testing and a "rogue" card would need two people to vote as 6th place before it would hit 20th on the final results thread.
I'll be sticking with the originally posted voting/point system of 1-20 for these.
I'm not concerned about banned cards. All is welcome. I'll let the reader determine if they want to ban cards from their cube if they want to.
Full Hybrid Costing Cards Poll
Azorius Corner Case
If there are any other corner cases, please let me know.
CubeTutor: www.cubetutor.com/cubeblog/72
Thread: http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=512410
So if card A gets ranked 20th on 76% of lists and card B gets ranked 1st on 74% of lists, your system would rank A over B. That seems a bit flawed...
Really, you shouldn't even use a linear model at all to assign points, since the difference between any two adjacent rankings isn't anywhere near constant.
One idea would be to look at median rankings / discarding outliers instead of using a simple mean. It could solve the potential outlier issues that occur when a small minority of voters rank a card highly (and other voters do not vote for the card at all). To be honest, I've only used the mean for the pauper rankings since that's what other people used in previous years. However, as leadfeather89 said, in most cases, if you have enough voters, a simple linear ranking system with aggregate rankings calculated via the mean works just fine.
My CubeCobra (draft 20 card packs, 2 packs.)
430, Peasant, Very Unpowered
Why you should take your hybrids out of your gold section
Manamath Article
My Peasant Cube thread !!! (380 cards)
Draft my Peasant Cube on Cube Cobra !!!
02 Fact or Fiction
03 Mulldrifter
04 Man-o'-War
05 Crystal Shard
06 Tandem Lookout
07 Mist Raven
08 Talrand's Invocation
09 Serendib Efreet
10 Clone
11 Counterspell
12 Jetting Glasskite
13 Rushing River
14 Propaganda
15 Accumulated Knowledge (x4)
16 Standstill
17 Compulsion
18 Wing Splicer
19 Compulsive Research
20 Looter il-kor
Multiplayer Cube
2 Mist Raven
3 Man-o'-war
4 Tandem Lookout
5 Infiltrator il-kor
6 Mulldrifter
7 Standstill
8 Sea Drake
9 Looter il-kor
10 Fact or Fiction
12 Crystal Shard
13 Rushing River
14 Cloudfin Raptor
15 Condescend
16 Latch Seeker
17 Hour of Need
18 Curiosity
19 Cloudskate
20 Welkin Tern
I think
My CubeCobra (draft 20 card packs, 2 packs.)
430, Peasant, Very Unpowered
Why you should take your hybrids out of your gold section
Manamath Article
02 Mulldrifter
03 Crystal Shard
04 Fact or Fiction
05 Man-o'-War
06 Calcite Snapper
07 Mist Raven
08 Clone
09 Fettergeist
10 Mind Control
11 Counterspell
12 Sleep
13 Rushing River
14 Talrand's Invocation
15 Enclave Cryptologist
16 Pestermite
17 Jetting Glasskite
18 Azure Mage
19 Compulsive Research
20 Thassa's Emissary
No noteworthy online-only rarity downshifts.
CubeTutor: www.cubetutor.com/cubeblog/72
Thread: http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=512410
tl;dr - Vote for "best" cards, or "strongest" cards?
I had thoughts prior to your post about putting an honorable mention to Mana Drain since it is oh so powerful, but nobody runs it cuz it's oh so powerful.
--
I'm incredibly surprised that Calcite Snapper is already not a consensus card. In fact, at the moment, it's a pet card. That blows me away. It blocks so much on the ground like a champ, and dodges nearly all removal. And then finishes games off after 7 turns have passed.
My blue:
2 Hour of Need
3 Talrand's Invocation
4 Fact or Fiction
5 Deep Analysis
6 Counterspell
7 Sleep
8 Rushing River
9 Man-o'-War
10 Enclave Cryptologist
11 Narcolepsy
12 Condescend
13 Illusory Angel
14 Augury Owl
15 Curiosity
16 Tandem Lookout
17 Wing Splicer
18 Control Magic
19 Thassa's Emissary
20 Complicate
Is your Mana Drain legit inscho?
Multiplayer Cube